Murray v. Woods
| Decision Date | 18 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 39478,No. 1,39478,1 |
| Citation | 106 Ga.App. 267,126 S.E.2d 828 |
| Parties | Margie W. MURRAY, Administratrix, v. W. F. WOODS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The question of the excessiveness or inadequacy of a verdict for pain and suffering is not raised by the general grounds of a motion for new trial.
2. The fact that the verdict was for the exact amount of special damages proven does not show bias, prejudice or gross mistake on the part of the jury requiring the grant of a new trial, and this is especially true in a situation where the rule of comparative negligence was applicable.
William Ginn, a bachelor 79 years of age, having no dependents and no relatives other than two married nieces neither of whom lived in the home with him, was walking across DeKalb Avenue at the LaFrance Street intersection when he was struck and fatally injured by the automobile of William F. Woods as it traveled on DeKalb Avenue. He was rendered unconscious by the impact of the car and remained so until his death some 16 hours later. The administratrix of this estate brought this action to recover for pain and suffering and for the funeral expenses. Upon a trial the jury returned a verdict for the exact amount of the funeral bill and plaintiff filed her motion for new trial upon the general grounds and a special ground added by amendment in which it was contended that since the verdict returned was for the amount of the special damages only, it showed upon its face that nothing had been included for pain and suffering and that it resulted from bias, prejudice or gross mistake. On the overruling of the motion, as amended, plaintiff assigns error.
Sheats, Parker & Webb, Guy, Parker, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Lee Hutcheson, Jonesboro, T. J. Long, Ben Weinberg, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. There was evidence concerning the manner in which this accident happened authorizing the jury to conclude that both the deceased and the defendant were negligent, and thus to apply the rule of comparative negligence in arriving at a verdict. Consequently, there is no merit in the general grounds. While plaintiff urges the inadequacy of the verdict, this is not a matter that can be reached by the general grounds, since in this case the claim of inadequacy rests entirely upon the proposition that nothing was included in the verdict for pain and suffering. Trammell v. Atlanta Coach Co., 51 Ga.App. 705, 707(2), 181 S.E. 315.
While there are instances when the general grounds may reach the matter of excessiveness or inadequacy of the verdict (Cf. Bishop & Parsons v. Mayor, etc., of Macon, 7 Ga. 200; McLendon v. Floyd, 59 Ga.App. 506, 1 S.E.2d 466; Tallent v. McKelvey, 105 Ga.App. 660, 125 S.E.2d 65), they are confined to situations in which there is a reasonably certain measure of damages, as for loss of goods, loss of services, funeral bills, medical bills, hospital bills and the like. But in instances when there is no standard or measure of damages other than the enlightened conscience of the juror, as in actions to recover damages for assault and battery, for libel, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maloy v. Dixon
...561, McBowman v. Merry, 104 Ga.App. 454(1), 122 S.E.2d 136; Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga.App. 785(1), 123 S.E.2d 184; Murray v. Woods, 106 Ga.App. 267, 126 S.E.2d 828; Stynchcombe v. Gooding Amusement Co., 110 Ga.App. 864, 865, 140 S.E.2d Pretermitting the matter of whether the mere listing of......
-
Wheat v. Montgomery
...Ga. 467; The Southwestern R. Co. v. Johnson, 60 Ga. 667(2); Porter v. Sou. Ry. Co., 73 Ga.App. 718, 37 S.E.2d 831 and Murray v. Woods, 106 Ga.App. 267(2), 126 S.E.2d 828; Johnson v. Cook, 123 Ga.App. 302(1), 180 S.E.2d 591; Maloy v. Dixon, 127 Ga.App. 151, 164, 193 S.E.2d 19. Relative to th......
-
Palo v. Meisenheimer
...SE2d 331) (1953)." Stroud, supra 183 Ga.App. at 630(5), 359 S.E.2d 680. See also Benson v. Tucker, supra at (4); Murray v. Woods, 106 Ga.App. 267(2), 126 S.E.2d 828 (1962). Judgment BEASLEY and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. ...
-
Welsh v. Fowler
...on the part of the jury. This is especially true in a situation where the rule of comparative negligence was applicable. Murray v. Woods, 106 Ga.App. 267, 126 S.E.2d 828. Enumeration 22 is not Judgments affirmed. PANNELL and DEEN, JJ., concur. ...